Democrats Are Spinning A Real National Emergency

Is it unlawful? Is it unprecedented? No, and No.

Caravan of illegal aliens.

Because the Congress will not fund the southern wall, President Trump has no alternative but to declare a national emergency to obtain funding and continue construction efforts. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) claims such action is unprecedented. Senate Minority Chuck Schumer (D-NY) tweeted it would be “a lawless act, a gross abuse of the power of the presidency.” Both are wrong.

First of all, the “National Emergencies Act” (94-412) is legitimate legislation passed in 1976 and empowers the President to activate special powers during a crisis.

The first President to issue an emergency proclamation was Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, back in 1917, to improve maritime tonnage to move resources around the United States and the world. This is back when the world was embroiled in the first World War and our allies required supplies.

In recent times, National Emergencies have been called by the president numerous times. To date, 58 emergencies have been declared, and 31 are still in effect. Here is how many recent presidents have issued:

03-President Trump
11-President Obama
13-President Bush
09-President Clinton

Many of these are concerned with blocking the property of people who violate American policy, but it has also been used for imposing sanctions and other situations. Speaker Pelosi made a veiled threat when she said, “A Democratic president can declare emergencies, as well.” The reality is, Democrats have already declared emergencies, as former President Barack Obama bragged, “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone.”

In Speaker Pelosi’s view, she foresees future presidents declaring emergencies over such things as gun rights. This would inevitably trigger a Constitutional crisis as it would be violating the Second Amendment. This is not the same as in President Trump’s case where he wishes to secure our border. Nonetheless, his emergency will be challenged in court, but he will likely win as he has precedence on his side.

So why all of the fuss? The Democrats are trying to convince the public the declaration of emergency by President Trump is unlawful and unprecedented in order to build public opinion against the president. The fact is, nothing could be further from the truth. It is simply not so.

In order to invoke the emergency, President Trump will have to demonstrate a crisis truly exists. The Democrats claim the problem is being “manufactured” by the president, but there is plenty of data to show a bona fide problem exists. Both parties are cognizant of this, so why are the Democrats adamantly opposed to it? Simple: control. There are now over 22 million illegal immigrants in the United States with more trying to come in every day, some are honest and hard working, others are criminals. Either way, the Democrats are endeavoring to grant citizenship to these people thereby turning them into voters who would presumably support their party, thereby turning the Congress and White House to liberal rule.

Let’s be clear, the Republicans and the president have no problem with legal migration, as we all should be, but there are other forces at play here trying to undermine our country.

Do we have a National Emergency? Yes, I believe we do, both at the border and in the halls of Congress.

Keep the Faith!

RELATED ARTICLES:

If Trump declares a national emergency over the border, he’ll be on solid legal ground

Trump Frees Up $8 Billion To Build The Wall

House Passes Border Security Bill With Most Democrats Voting In Favor And Most Republicans Against It

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce Is Right column with images is republished with permission. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Muslim U.S. Air Force Intelligence Specialist tried to pass classified American information to Iran

But if anyone had questioned her loyalty, he or she would have been denounced as a racist, bigoted “Islamophobe.”


Monica Elfriede Witt (a.k.a.
Fatemah Zahra)

“Iran Conducted Cyber Hacks on U.S., Recruited U.S. Air Force Officer to Steal Classified Info,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, February 13, 2019:

WARSAW, Poland—The Trump administration announced a new package of sanctions on Iranian entities tied to the cyber backing of U.S. individuals, a move that comes on the heels of American authorities indicting a U.S. Air Force officer who allegedly tried to pass classified information to Tehran after defecting to the country.

The Department of Justice announced early Wednesday that it had indicted Monica Elfriede Witt, also known as Fatemah Zahra, a former active duty U.S. Air Force Intelligence Specialist and Special Agent, for attempting to pass classified American information to Iran.

Witt had access to secret and top-secret information, according to the indictment, unsealed early Wednesday.

Witt was deployed to several overseas location to conduct “classified missions collecting signals intelligence,” including those of adversaries.

Witt had access to “classified information, including details of ongoing counterintelligence operations, true names of sources, and the identities of U.S. agents involved in the recruitment of those sources,” according to the indictment.

“In or around January 2012 to in or around May 2015, in Iran, and elsewhere outside the jurisdiction of any particular State or district, defendant [Witt] did knowingly and unlawfully combine, confederate, and agree with other persons, both known and unknown to the grand jury, including officers of the IRGC, to knowingly and unlawfully communicate, deliver, and transmit to a foreign government, specifically Iran, and to that foreign government’s representatives, officers, and agents, directly and indirectly, documents and information relating to the national defense of the United States, with the intent and reason to believe that the same would be used to the injury of the United States and to the advantage of Iran, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 794(a),” the indictment alleges.

The disclosure of this information leak was timed to coincide with an announcement by the Treasury Department that it is sanctioning a handful of Iranian entities for their role in cyber hacks on Americans.

The sanctions hit an Iranian-based entity tied to the country’s Revolutionary Guards Corps, or IRGC. This includes “efforts to recruit and collect intelligence from foreign attendees [of various conferences], including U.S. persons, and four associated individuals,” according to the Treasury Department.

Sanctions also were leveled on “a separate Iran-based entity and six associated individuals involved in the targeting of current and former U.S. government and military personnel as part of a malicious cyber campaign to gain access to and implant malware on their computer systems.”…

RELATED ARTICLE: Health and Human Service’s Fugitives from Justice: all New Americans?

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is by Pixabay.

The 2019 Intelligence Assessment: The policy implications for Gaza

It would seem futile to conduct yet another indecisive round of fighting, only to return to yet another tense and sporadically violent interbellum for several years—until the next major flare-up of fighting…

Military assessment warns of high risk of war with GazaThe Times of Israel, Feb. 13. 2019.
Israeli military report predicts high probability of clashes in Gaza… in 2019i24News, Feb. 13, 2019.
Chief of Staff: Prepare for Gaza conflictIsrael National News, Feb. 13, 2019.
Intelligence assessment for 2019: IDF prepares for confrontation with Gaza – Channel 20News, Feb. 13, 2019.

This Wednesday (Feb. 13, 2019) the annual Intelligence Assessment was presented to the IDF General Staff, less than a month after Lieutenant General Aviv Kochavi assumed his position as Chief-of-Staff. From it, the Israeli public learned that a quarter-century after allowing Yasser Arafat back into Gaza (1994); almost a decade-and-a-half after Israel evacuated the entire Gaza Strip (2005), leaving it to the exclusive control of the Palestinian-Arabs; and after three major military campaigns over the last decade, Israel is once again on the cusp of another violent conflagration with the terrorist-controlled enclave. Thus, according to the depressing IDF assessment: “Gaza…is the most volatile region, and there is a risk of terror groups initiating action [against Israel].” 

Undrinkable water, raw sewage flows, perennial power outages

Last December, I was excoriated by the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, for reaching what I consider to be an inescapable, fact-based conclusion that, “Eventually, there will either be Arabs in Gaza or Jews in the Negev. In the long run, there will not be both!”

Accordingly—since there appears little chance of the Palestinian-Arabs in general, and the Gazans in particular, morphing into something they have not been for over hundred years—for anyone who favors the option of Jews remaining in the Negev, there is little option but to reconcile oneself to the lamentable fact that “The solution to the problem of Gaza is its deconstruction—not its reconstruction.”

Indeed, I would be intrigued to hear what my detractors have in mind for Gaza and how they envisage the fate of the hapless enclave in, say, ten to fifteen years from today. For already, its unfortunate inhabitants are in dire straits, with most of their natural water sources polluted, with raw sewage flowing into the streets, and with electrical power available for only a several hours a day.

Significantly, this grave situation has been precipitated despite the fact that Gaza has received one of the world’s highest levels of international aid and massive flows of humanitarian merchandise from Israel, which have, almost invariably, been promptly expropriated by Hamas. Ominously for the people of Gaza, this aid appears to be diminishing, making the future seem even bleaker than the present.

The onset of “donor fatigue”?

Indeed, in light of overwhelming evidence of the lack of good governance in the Palestinian-administered territories, in general and in Gaza in particular, there are increasing signs of “donor fatigue”. Of course, the most significant manifestation of this is the massive curtailment of aid by the current US administration, both to the Palestinian Authority (PA) and its related institutions, as well as to UN institutions rendering services to the Palestinian population—chiefly to the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). However, other donor countries have raised concerns that the aid they provide may be misused. Thus, Australia, for example, has decided to divert the aid it gives via UN—rather than directly to the PA.

In a recent study (December 2018), Natan Brown, professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University, diagnosed one of the major reasons for growing donor disillusionment: “For Palestinians, the problem is deeply rooted in more than just the policy inclinations of their leaders.”

He warns: “That leadership itself has decayed and lost much of its ability to shape Palestinian political horizons and strategic thinking. Palestinian leaders and institutions … pursue no coherent ideology, express no compelling moral vision, are subject to no oversight, and inspire no collective enthusiasm. The problem goes beyond the corruption that has been an issue in the past to a pattern of disengagement from any practical state-building efforts.

Gathering gloom over Gaza

Brown sets out the gathering gloom that ongoing trends auger for Gaza: “The recent history of Gaza offers a grim warning of the severe consequences that can follow when international assistance declines…. When Hamas took over Gaza in 2007, the PA split between Hamas-controlled Gaza and the Fatah-controlled West Bank. As two-state diplomacy began to lose traction, international actors simply postponed efforts to address this problem.”

Although, as he noted, “Some international assistance continued to flow to Gaza, but it was seen as humanitarian support. Most donors avoided supporting official institutions and politics more broadly. Attention, diplomatic energy, and funds shifted elsewhere (primarily to the West Bank and the PA there).”

He describes the results of these developments: “After more than a decade, the results are clear: disastrous humanitarian conditions, radicalization, and periodic bouts of violence. Rather than an actual peace process, the negotiations that take place between Israelis and Palestinians in Gaza alternate between containing violence and threatening it.”

Brown then issues a sober warning as to the likely consequences: “…if international donors tacitly abandon not merely Gaza but the entire Palestinian people based on a combination of conscious U.S. policy and declining European interest—then future generations of Israelis and Palestinians are likely to pay a high price. The conflict would probably metastasize and no longer be amenable to diplomacy of any sort.”

Two flimsy excuses

In the public discourse, two flimsy excuses are commonly bandied about in the mainstream media for the ongoing fate of the general population in Gaza.

Both portray the inhabitants of Gaza as victims – either (a) as victims of their leadership and/or (b) as victims of Israel’s repressive blockade of the hapless enclave.

With regard to the former, the Gazans are not the blameless victims of their leadership.

Quite the opposite!

They are the very crucible in which that leadership was formed, and from which it emerged.

To underscore this, over the last five years, public expression of collective Palestinian preferences have consistently shown “overwhelming” support for lethal attacks against Israelis (including civilians inside the pre-1967 lines), and for the “pay-to-slay” payments made to “security prisoners” (read, “jailed terrorists”), who have murdered countless Israelis in cold blood—often in the most brutal manner.

Indeed, a poll conducted  just over a year and a half ago by a leading Palestinian survey institute, the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, found that 85% of Gazans supported maintaining payments to said “security prisoners”, while recently thousands of Gazans rallied demanding release of convicted perpetrators of terror-related offenses.

Moreover, a December 2018 poll, conducted by the same Palestinian institute, showed that the Gazans display little remorse for their election of Hamas. Thus, according to its findings, in a future presidential election, Hamas’s Ismail Haniyeh would trounce incumbent Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah by almost two-to-one!

Consequence not cause

As for the later excuse, it is demonstrably and indisputably clear that the imposition of the quarantine on Gaza is the consequence—not the cause—of the Gazans enmity towards Israel.

Indeed, to attribute the hostility toward Israel to the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza plays directly into the hands of Israel’s detractors. Worse, it is in effect, to be complicit with the enemy—endorsing its mendacious and malevolent narrative.

After all, it necessarily implies that if only Israel would somehow initiate/facilitate an improvement in Gaza’s living conditions, the violence would subside. This not only reinforces the false claims that Palestinian terrorism is driven by Israeli-induced economic privation, but also that Israel bears the responsibility for such terror, which is, therefore, no more than an understandable reaction to hardship and despair, externally imposed by an alien power.

But this is a transparent inversion of causality.

For, the penury in Gaza is not the cause of enmity towards the Jewish state. Quite the opposite! It is enmity towards the Jewish state that is the cause of penury in Gaza.

The current conditions in Gaza are not the result of a lack of international humanitarian aid, or of Israeli largesse. Gaza has enjoyed an abundance of both, only to squander them on efforts to harm Israel—by diverting massive resources to the construction of a vast military infrastructure with which to assault the Jewish state.

Gaza: “Cutting its nose to spite its face”

Indeed, anyone with even a smidgeon of familiarity with Israeli society and its basic impulses, must know that, had there been any genuine desire for peaceful coexistence with its Jewish neighbors, Gaza would have flourished. Israeli enterprise and expertise, which transformed Israel from a struggling agricultural-based country to a super-charged post-industrial powerhouse in a few decades, would have flooded into the enclave, providing opportunity and employment for its impoverished residents.

So, in effect, the only thing that the Gazans need to do to extricate themselves from their current predicament is…nothing! All they need to do is stop what they are doing now—attacking Israel. Indeed, the only thing that needs to happen for Gaza to thrive is for them to convincingly foreswear hostility and embrace peaceful coexistence with Israel.
 

But of course, that will not happen! For that is not in the nature of the Gazan populace, hopelessly immersed in quagmire of their own making of Judeophobic hatred and Judeocidal desire that is strangling any prospect of extricating themselves from the web of destitution and despair into which they have inextricably bound themselves.

2019 Intelligence Assessment: The point of yet another round?

So back to the 2019 Intelligence Assessment…

According to its appraisal, there is a good chance of the radical Islamic elements in Gaza initiating a provocation that would compel the IDF to engage (once again) in large-scale military action—either to punish or prevent attacks on Israel’s civilian population. But what would be the long term—indeed, even the intermediate term—point of such action?

After all, it has been tried time and again in the past ten years—in Operation Cast Lead (2008-9), Operation Pillar of Defense (2012) and Operation Protective Edge (2014) –to little or no avail. Despite inflicting heavy damage on its adversaries, the IDF is now confronted with foes, whose martial capabilities are far beyond anything once even remotely imagined.

Accordingly, it would seem futile to conduct yet another indecisive round of fighting, only to return to yet another tense and sporadically violent interbellum for several years, until the next major flare-up of fighting—which would once again end with a tense sporadically violent interbellum, until the regime in Gaza felt strong enough to engage again. Or too weak not to.

 
2019 Intelligence Assessment & Albert Einstein

It was Albert Einstein who famously said that one could not solve a problem with the level of thinking that created it.  Clearly, the problem of Gaza was created by the belief that land could be transferred to the Palestinian-Arabs to provide them a viable opportunity for self-governance.

Equally clearly, then, the problem of Gaza cannot be solved by persisting with ideas that created it – i.e.by persisting with a plan for Israel to provide the Palestinian-Arabs with land for self-governance.

The problem can only be solved by entirely abandoning the concept that Gaza should be governed by Palestinian-Arabs. Any effective solution must follow this new line of reasoning.

Any other outcome will merely prolong the problem. If Hamas comes out stronger from the next round of fighting, it will be only a matter of time before the next, probably more deadly, round breaks out.

If Hamas comes out weaker from this round of fighting, it is only a matter of time before it will be replaced by an even more violent extremist-successor – and thus, once more, only a matter of time until the next, probably more deadly, round breaks out.

The only durable solution requires the IDF to take over the Gaza Strip, to dismantle the ruling regime there, and to extend Israeli sovereignty over the entire Strip– and then initiate a large scale enterprise for the humanitarian relocation of the non-belligerent Arab population.

2019 Intelligence Assessment & Herbert Hoover

 This is the only approach that can solve the problem of Gaza.

This is the only approach that will eliminate the threat to Israel continually emanating from it.

It was former US President Herbert Hoover, dubbed the “Great Humanitarian” for his efforts to relieve famine in Europe after WWI, who wrote : “Consideration should be given even to the heroic remedy of transfer of populations…the hardship of moving is great, but it is [still] less than the constant suffering of minorities and the constant recurrence of war.”

How could anyone, with any degree of compassion and humanity, disagree? 

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Pixabay.

Book Review: Freedom Fighter

Joanna Palani. Photo: Instagram.

As I write this book review, the United States sponsored International Conference on Peace in the Middle East has opened in Warsaw, Poland. This is fortuitous because America has been militarily involved in the Middle East, especially since 9/11/2001.

I have read many books about the Middle East but none have been as profound as that written by a 26-year old Kurdish woman named Joanna Palani titled “Freedom Fighter. My War Against ISIS on the Frontlines of Syria.” Joanna Palani’s perspective on peace in the Middle East is unique and based upon her personal experiences as a child, as a young girl and as a woman.

We must listen to what she has to say.

A Woman At War With Everyone

Joanna was (and in her heart still is) a soldier who served with the Women’s Protection Units (YPJ) in Iraq and Syria fighting against Daesh (ISIS). Joanna writes, “We [the YPJ] believe that women and men are equal, so we fight together for the freedom of the Kurdish people and the destruction of ISIS.”

Joanna was born in 1993 in a UN refugee camp outside of Ramadi, Iraq. At the age of 3-years old she and her Sunni Muslim family were relocated to Denmark. Joanna writes, “In Kurdish culture we celebrate the group – the family, the community, and the clan – instead of the individual, and the rules of the clan are the rules by which we live.” From 1996 to 2010 Joanna was raised and schooled in Denmark. It was in Denmark that she began her quest to become the equal of men.

Losing One’s Virginity

Joanna, as a Sunni Muslim girl, was raised to believe that the most important thing was her virginity. During her powerful story we learn how she lost her virginity in countless ways.

She lost her virginity because she rebelled against the strict Sunni Muslim beliefs of her father and her family. For this she was verbally abused, beaten, starved and eventually left her family to escape the oppressive culture in her home. Joanna writes, “Everything we do right, our father takes credit for. Everything we do wrong, our mother takes the blame.”

Joanna lost her virginity as a girl when she became a fighter (Peshmerga) in 2011. At the age of 18 Joanna went to Syria to join the Kurdish battalions that supported the Free Syrian Army volunteers fighting the regime of Bashar al-Assad.

Joanna writes, “In the Middle East, most people consider a girl able to have sex as an adult after her first period. A ‘woman’ is normally a married person who has had sex, whereas a ‘girl’ has not had sex.” Joanna lost her virginity to become a woman when she had an out-of-wedlock relationship with one of her commanders referred to as “R” in her book. “R” later abused her. She left “R.” For this she was later called a whore, prostitute and even shunned by some of the women in the YPJ. Women, and men, whom she had fought shoulder-to-shoulder with to free Syria from Daesh either rejected her or took sexual advantage of her.

Joanna lost her virginity when she was betrayed by her clan, friends, lawyer, the Danish police and Danish secret service (PET), and by thousands on her social media sites.

Finally, Joanna lost her virginity to Denmark, her beloved adopted country, which took her passport, tried her, found her guilty and put her in prison twice for going to Syria to fight for women’s rights and freedom. Something she knew was right to do but the current Danish laws find to be illegal.

Joanna’s Conclusion

When I finished reading Freedom Fighter. My War Against ISIS on the Frontlines of Syria the below quote came to mind:

Fate whispered to the warrior, “You cannot withstand the coming storm.” And the warrior whispered back, “I am the storm.”

Joanna ends her book with this:

I do think women should be armed, as part of a wider democratic and equality movement. I do believe women are entitled to defend and protect themselves with weapons from ideologies that seek their absolute destruction, because what other choice do we have?

It was not death that haunted me on the battlefield, it was my life. I don’t regret anything I’ve done: there is no longer an Islamic State, and there is no longer a caliphate, so we achieved our aims – we won. My prize is to be alive still: to see what age I will actually make it to, and to find out how else I can spend my life.

I strongly recommend reading “Freedom Fighter. My War Against ISIS on the Frontlines of Syria.”

As American Revolutionary Army General John Stark said, “Live Free or Die. Death is not the worst of evils.” Live free Joanna, live free! We need you to tell your story far and wide!

Another Illegal Alien Arrested in Gruesome Murder

You have probably seen this news about another illegal alien killer, however I’m mentioning it because the sensational aspects of the case have made it news around the world.

The victim was beautiful and her body was stuffed in a suitcase and dumped in the woods making the news apparently more interesting to the mainstream media than the Reno, Nevada case I reported recently where four older Americans were killed in their homes by another illegal alien creep—a story that didn’t get nearly the coverage this one is getting.

The man alleged to have murdered the young and beautiful Valerie Reyes is in the country illegally as a visa overstay.

From the Washington Times,

Suspect in suitcase death in U.S. illegally, authorities say

A man accused of killing his ex-girlfriend and dumping her body in a suitcase in Connecticut is a citizen of Portugal who has been in the U.S. illegally for more than a year, federal authorities said Wednesday as the victim’s loved ones gathered for her funeral.

Javier Da Silva Rojas, who had been living in New York City, was taken into custody Monday and charged with kidnapping resulting in death in the killing of 24-year-old Valerie Reyes, of New Rochelle, New York. The charge carries the possibility of the death penalty.

Da Silva, also 24, entered the U.S. on May 8, 2017, through the Visa Waiver Program and was required to leave by Aug. 5, 2017, Immigration and Customs Enforcement said in a statement.

If you are interested in reading more about the alleged killer, simply search his name and you will see stories about the murder everywhere.

We spend a lot of time talking about “the Wall,” but the feds need to do more to round-up visa overstays and get them the heck out of the country!  Why not let the President know how you feel about the need for greater enforcement!

RELATED ARTICLE: Former U.S. Counterintelligence Agent Charged With Espionage on Behalf of Iran

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is by Pixabay.

VIDEO: President Trump’s Rally in El Paso Texas

The following is the full rally by President Donald J. Trump in El Paso, Texas as recorded by the Fox News Channel on YouTube. NOTE: President Trump comes on stage at 45:23 into the video.

According to Fox News:

President Trump begins his 2020 campaign with his first rally of the year in El Paso, Texas. Trump is expected to reiterate his demand for a border wall as Democrat Beto O’Rourke leads a protest against it at the same time.

ABOUT FOX NEWS CHANNEL

FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service dedicated to delivering breaking news as well as political and business news. The number one network in cable, FNC has been the most watched television news channel for more than 16 years and according to a Suffolk University/USA Today poll, is the most trusted television news source in the country. Owned by 21st Century Fox, FNC is available in more than 90 million homes and dominates the cable news landscape, routinely notching the top ten programs in the genre.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured video is by Fox News Channel on YouTube. The featured image is by Pixabay.

Send an Email To Congressional Democrats! Ask Them To Criticize Rep. Ilhan Omar for her virulent anti-Semitic diatribes.

Congressional Democrats need to do more than criticize Rep Ilhan Omar for her virulent anti-Semitic diatribes against Israel.

Click here to send your email to House Democrat Leaders. 

  This email is prepared this way because the House of Representative Leaders are blocking normal form emails sent through the Florida Family Association email server.   If the above link does not open in your email browser or if the email is returned to you please prepare an email using the suggested subject line, content and email addresses provided below. Please feel free to change the wording.

Congressional Democrats need to do more than criticize Rep Ilhan Omar for her virulent anti-Semitic diatribes against Israel.   They need to support the Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act that includes anti-Boycott, Divest and Sanctions (BDS) of Israel provisions.

Somali Muslim Congresswoman Ilhan Omar continues to spew anti-Semitic rhetoric.  Rep. Eliot Engel, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs, criticized Rep. Ilhan Omar for her controversial comments accusing pro-Israel groups of bribing American lawmakers.  

Congresswoman Omar’s anti-Semitic comments targeted the Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act mostly in part because the legislation provides support for state legislation that prohibits state vendors from supporting the Hamas backed Boycott, Divest and Sanctions against Israel.

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) strongly supports the Hamas backed Boycott, Divest and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel.  Therefore, CAIR opposes the Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act.   CAIR issued a press release on February 5, 2019 titled “CAIR Condemns Senate’s Passage of Unconstitutional Anti-BDS Bill, Urges U.S. House to Oppose.”   

CAIR supports Somali Muslim Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitic rants.  CAIR issued a press release on February 11, 2019 titled:  “Anti-Semitism is real.”  The news release stated in part:  “CAIR applauds Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib for their courage in speaking the truth about Israel’s racial, religious and ethnic segregation.”  

Democrats in the United States House of Representatives need to do more than say a few words of criticism regarding Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitic rants.   Democrats in the House of Representatives need to pass the Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act like the United States Senate recently did with a vote of 77-23.  The Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act strengthens opposition to the anti-Semitic inspired Boycott, Divest and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel.

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to encourage Democratic House of Representative Leadership to do more than just talk against anti-Semitism among its ranks.

Click here to send your email to House Democrat Leaders

(For Gmail, Yahoo and other email clients that require comma separation of addresses.)  YAHOO works best in Yahoo Mobile App, not so well with internet browser.

Click here to send your email to House Democrat Leaders.  

(For Outlook and other email clients that require semicolon separation of addresses.)

This email will open in your email browser unlike regular email campaigns.  This email is prepared this way because the House of Representative Leaders are blocking normal form emails sent through the Florida Family Association email server.   If the above link does not open in your email browser or if the email is returned to you please prepare an email using the suggested subject line, content and email addresses provided below. Please feel free to change the wording.


Suggested subject line:

Congressional Democrats need to do more than criticize Rep Ilhan Omar for anti-Semitic attacks.

Suggested content:

Dear Speaker Pelosi, Rep Hoyer, Rep Clyburn and Rep Jeffries,

I hope that the Democrats in Congress will do more than just utter words of criticism regarding the anti-Semitic diatribes Rep Ilhan Omar leveled against Israel.

The House of Representatives needs to pass the Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act that was approved with bipartisan support by the United States Senate.

Please support and move for a vote the Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act.

Email String separated by commas

nancy.pelosi@mail.house.gov,robert.edmonson@mail.house.gov,
alexis.brandt@mail.house.gov,james.clyburn@mail.house.gov,
hakeem.jeffries@mail.house.gov

Email String separated by semicolons

nancy.pelosi@mail.house.gov;robert.edmonson@mail.house.gov;
alexis.brandt@mail.house.gov;james.clyburn@mail.house.gov;
hakeem.jeffries@mail.house.gov

Contact information:

Speaker of the House of Representatives
Representative Nancy Pelosi
nancy.pelosi@mail.house.gov
Chief of Staff: Robert Edmonson
robert.edmonson@mail.house.gov

Majority Leader
Representative Steny Hoyer
Chief of Staff: Alexis Covey-Brandt
alexis.brandt@mail.house.gov

Majority Whip
Representative James Clyburn
james.clyburn@mail.house.gov

Democratic Caucus Chairman
Representative Hakeem Jeffries
hakeem.jeffries@mail.house.gov

RELATED ARTICLE: Rep. Ilhan Omar’s Bizarre ‘Apology’ for Anti-Semitic Remarks Doesn’t Cut It

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is from Rep. Ilhan Omar’s Facebook page.

VIDEO: The Sun City Cell – Investigative Documentary by Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch presents “The Sun City Cell” – a stunning investigative documentary detailing the Narco-Terrorist Cell operating out of El Paso, Texas!

Featuring Judicial Watch’s Director of Investigations, Chris Farrell, “The Sun City Cell” exposes a chilling narco-terror plot that government officials deny.

In this 40-minute expose, you follow the trail of corruption. You see the actual court documentation. You listen up close and personal to the confidential informants. And with Chris Farrell as your guide, you follow the four-year investigation and meet the sources inside the law enforcement and government who risk their lives to get the truth to the American people.

EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch documentary with images and video is republished with permission.

Fact Sheet: National Emergencies, Military Construction Authority and the Border Barrier

It is not clear whether President Trump plans to declare a national emergency in order to build a physical barrier along our border with Mexico, in order to protect Americans from illegal aliens, drug traffickers, gun runners, human smugglers and other assorted criminal border jumpers.

The mainstream media has repeatedly asserted that the president does not have the authority to declare a border emergency and take the action necessary to defend the American public.

However, the media pundits would appear to be mistaken. Below, FAIR sets out the facts on the National Emergencies Act and related statutory provisions that would enable the president to accomplish what congress refuses to – place the interests of law-abiding Americans above those of law-breaking foreign nationals.

  • 1976 National Emergencies Act (NEA) 50 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1651: This legislation specifies the manner in which the president may declare a national emergency. It also gives congress the authority to terminate a national emergency by joint resolution of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.[1]
    • 58 national emergencies have been declared since the act was signed into law by President Gerald Ford.[2]
    • 31 of those national emergencies remain in effect.[3]
    • An emergency declaration pursuant to the NEA does not provide any specific emergency authority on its own. Rather, it allows the president to exercise emergency authorities set forth in other statutes.[4]
      • There are currently 123 distinct statutes granting the president emergency authority to respond to a wide variety of situations.[5]
        • None of those statutes explicitly reference immigration. However, many of them would allow the present to implement an emergency response to migration crises involving threats to national security, public safety or public health.
      • As part of the emergency declaration process the president must specify which emergency authority he is invoking.
    • The statutes the president is most likely to invoke, upon declaring an immigration-related national emergency, are:
      • 10 U.S. Code § 2808 – Construction Authority in the Event of A Declaration of War or National Emergency: This statute provides that, upon the President’s declaration of a national emergency, “that requires use of the armed forces,” the Secretary of Defense may “without regard to any other provision of law . . .undertake military construction projects . . . not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces.”[6]
      • 33 U.S.C. § 2293 – Reprogramming During National Emergencies: This legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Army to terminate or defer Army civil works projects that are “not essential to the national defense” upon the declaration of a national emergency. The Secretary of the Army can then use the funds otherwise allocated to those projects for “authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense.”[7]
  • According to the Congressional Research Service there are also two statutes which may allow the president to begin construction on a border wall without declaring a national emergency or obtaining congressional authorization:
    • 10 U.S.C. § 2803 – Emergency Construction: This legislation provides that the Secretary of Defense “may carry out a military construction project not otherwise authorized by law” after determining the following: (1) “the project is vital to the national security or to the protection of health, safety, or the quality of the environment,” and (2) “the requirement for the project is so urgent that” deferring the project “would be inconsistent with national security or the protection of health, safety, or environmental quality.”[8]
    • 10 U.S.C. § 284 – Support for Counterdrug Activities and Activities to Counter Transnational Organized Crime: This legislation provides that the Secretary of Defense “may provide support for the counter drug activities or activities to counter transnational organized crime” of any law enforcement agency, including through the “[c]onstruction of roads and fences and installation of lighting to block drug smuggling corridors across international boundaries of the United States.”[9]Should the president choose to declare an immigration-related national emergency and invoke his powers under one of the aforementioned statutes, he is sure to be challenged in court – most likely in the radical Ninth Federal Circuit – by organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and its network of open-borders, pro-illegal-alien agitators.However, outside the Ninth Circuit, he is likely to prevail. Many prior presidents have declared national emergencies and invoked extraordinary powers in response to “crises” that were significantly less threatening than the near failure of our southern border.For now, those of us who are concerned about the integrity of America’s borders can only wait, watch and hope that our elected leaders will do the right thing and put the interests of everyday Americans above those of un-vetted border-jumpers who may present a significant threat to our country.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Truth About Border Walls’ Effectiveness

Angel Dad: Border Wall Funding Would Happen If Pelosi or Schumer’s Child Were Killed

New Source of Funds for the Wall?

Footnotes and endnotes

[1]1976 National Emergencies Act (NEA) 50 U.S.C. §§ 1601-

[2]Kendall Heath, “Here’s a List of the 31 National Emergencies that Have Been in Effect for Years,” ABC News, January 10, 2019, 

[3]Ibid.

[4]Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, Emergency Authority and Immunity Toolkit, accessed February 6, 2019, 

[5]Brennan Center for Justice, A Guide to Emergency Powers and Their Use, December 5, 2018, 

[6]Jennifer K. Elsea, Edward C. Liu, Jay B. Sykes, “Can the Department of Defense Build the Border Wall,” Congressional Research Service, January 10, 2019, p.3, 

[7]Ibid at p. 5.

[8]Ibid at p. 5.

[9]Ibid at p. 5.

AT&T’s Support for UnidosUS Undermines Border Security

Earlier this week, 2ndVote’s founder and chairman sent a letter to AT&T, Pepsi, and Walmart calling for these companies to stop funding UnidosUS, a liberal organization formerly known as La Raza. Thousands of concerned consumers have signed our petition to tell these companies to stop using their money to support leftist immigration policies, and oppose needed border security measures.

AT&T scores a 1 on the immigration issue because of their direct contributions to organizations such as LULAC, National Urban League, and of course, UnidosUS. All of these organizations advocate for sanctuary cities which gives illegal immigrants a safe haven for violating immigration laws, which is why we are telling AT&T to stop funding groups that support unsafe immigration policies.

Not only does AT&T score a 1 on immigration, but they also receive a 1 on all seven issues 2ndVote scores companies on. AT&T funds numerous organizations that support abortion, sponsor groups that are against national concealed carry laws, and partner with organizations that oppose religious liberty. If you want to see exactly why AT&T scores a 1 on every issue, here is a link to their company score page. And if you would like to join the thousands who oppose AT&T funding UnidosUS and other organizations, check out this article and sign the petition!

Here at 2ndVote, we don’t like to always focus on the bad actors, but also give our readers some better alternatives. A great alternative to AT&T is Patriot Mobile, who has long been an ally to 2ndVote. Patriot Mobile scores a 5 on all 7 issues, and offers a conservative choice for consumers looking to step away from AT&T. Rather than funding liberal organizations, Patriot Mobile takes a portion of their profits and donates them to Conservative organizations that stand for traditional family values, 1st and 2nd Amendment rights, and the right to life. So if you do decide to switch to Patriot Mobile, tell them that 2ndVote sent you.

Click here to see all the great products and services offered by Patriot Mobile

Help us continue highlighting how corporations support the left’s agenda by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

EDITORS NOTE: This 2ndVote column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is by Shutterstock.

INTO THE FRAY: Unilateral concessions — The latent agenda for the April elections

Despite claims to the contrary, the Palestinian-Arabs, territory and the fate of the Jewish settlements will permeate the agenda of the April elections, lurking below and hovering above all other issues. 

Almost inevitably, elections in Israel revolve—one way or another—around one issue…even when everyone insists they don’t. This is the “Palestinian problem” and its unavoidable derivative, the fate of the Jewish communities across the Green Line.

The Palestinian Problem: Hovering above, lurking below

Take for example the previous elections, in 2015, in which there was widespread consensus among pundits that the conflict with the Palestinian-Arabs was largely a non-issue. Indeed, barely a week before polling began, a Reuters report on the electoral campaign, headlined, “As Israeli election nears, peace earns barely a mention”, noted: “While social issues and the economy were grappled over at length, the conflict with the Palestinians and efforts to forge a two-state solution to the crisis … drew little…comment or insight.”  

However, despite this apparent marginalization of the Palestinian issue, in broad brush strokes, the parties left in opposition—arguably, with the perverse exception of Liberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu—all embraced, as matter of political preference, the idea of territorial withdrawal and Palestinian statehood.

By contrast, all the parties, who comprised the coalition, were parties with a political aversion to territorial withdrawal and the prospect of a Palestinian state, being ready to express grudging acceptance of the idea only with great reluctance—and subject to unrealistic and unattainable provisos.

Indeed, even Benjamin Netanyahu’s controversial statement about the “Arabs heading in drove for the polling stations” had clear connotations as to their collective sentiments of affiliation with their kinfolk across the 1967 “Green Line” and identification with their political aspirations for statehood.

The underlying bone of contention

Moreover, even the dissolution of the previous coalition, that precipitated the 2015 election, took place over a dispute between Netanyahu and two proponents of “two-states” in his government, Tzipi Livni and Yair Lapid.

Although several other reasons were cited for the breakup, they were all in the final analysis, an upshot of inherent differences over the underlying bone of contention, the Palestinian issue—and the eagerness of Livni and Lapid to push for “separation” from the Palestinians—i.e. to concede territory for a self-governing Palestinian entity. Thus, “Time” cited one source of Netanyahu’s ire at Linvi as being due to her meeting with Palestinian Authority chairman, Mahmoud Abbas, despite his explicit instructions not to.

Moreover, although Lapid has made perceptible efforts to downplay the Left-wing image that he cultivated before entering politics, when he even endorsed the division of Jerusalem, predicting that “the Palestinian flag will fly on public buildings in East Jerusalem”, he was still stridently at odds with Netanyahu on the Palestinian issue.

Thus, as Finance Minister in Netanyahu’s government, Lapid asserted that Israel should make every effort to bring about two states for two peoples, warning that if a Palestinian state was not established, this would spell “the end of Zionism.” He reiterated this position several months after the election, in an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic, in which he urged: “What we need to do is separate from the Palestinians ”– i.e. withdraw from territory and hand over its control to the Palestinian-Arabs.

Summing up the mounting tension within the coalition between Netanyahu and his recalcitrant pro-withdrawal adversaries, “Time” quoted one expert on Israeli politics as remarking: “Netanyahu didn’t want this government in the first place, and he prefers what he calls, his ‘natural allies ’”–-i.e. those not bent on “separation”, a.k.a. “withdrawal”.

“The Palestinians, peace talks, & settlements seem irrelevant…”

A similar situation might well be emerging in the run up to the 2019 April election, in which the Palestinian issue is widely considered, at best, marginal to the competing factions.

Reflecting this view, the Jerusalem Post wrote in a recent piece headlined, “Does Peace With The Palestinians Matter This Israeli Election?”: The Palestinians, peace talks, and settlements seem to be almost entirely irrelevant to this election season”.

However, this may prove to be as deceptive as it was in the past. For indeed, as in past, the real divide between the rivalrous political alignments in the parliament is still likely to be shaped by the differing attitudes of the various factions to the Palestinian-Arabs, the territories in Judea-Samaria, and the fate of the Jewish settlements there, rather than by differences on any other issues such as education, transport or health services.

Moreover, even if the term “peace” has become somewhat discredited, its erstwhile devotees, who once insisted that withdrawal from territory and transferal of its control to a Palestinian-Arab regime would usher in the yearned-for “peace”, today –despite disproven hopes—they persist in prescribing the very same measures as before!! However this time, no longer for the sake of unfashionable “peace,” but for the sake of a new false deity, “separation”.

In this regard, careful attention should be paid to things being said—or rather blurted out—by the new rising star on the April electoral horizon, former IDF Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen. (res.) Benny Gantz.

Gantz is widely seen as the leading challenger to Netanyahu, and to the incumbent alignment comprising his “natural allies”—and as a potential leader of an anti-Netanyahu alignment that has a tangible chance of wresting power from it.

Ominously reminiscent ring

In this regard there appear, to be much room for concern regarding Gantz’s political predilections.

For after soon breaking his long—and exasperating—silence, he has come out with public statements in which he used language disturbingly reminiscent of a “plan” (for want of a better word) being aggressively promoted by two copiously funded civil society organizations: the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) and Commanders for Israel’s Security (CIS).

Sadly, it is a “plan” that is borderline moronic in its underlying assumptions, hopelessly myopic in its strategic vision and callously malevolent in its attitude to tens of thousands of Israeli citizens, (indeed up to 150,000 by some estimates), resident in communities beyond the security barrier in Judea-Samaria.

Adding to this sense of unease is Gantz’s long standing association with these two organizations and/or with many of their prominent members. Indeed, at the time of writing this column, Gantz was still registered as part of the INSS team and is even reported to have been involved in the formulation of its currently proposed “plan”.

In broad outline, the “plan” is based on the idea of unilateral Israeli “initiatives” (read “concessions”) to keep the increasingly discredited two-state formula on life support, including renouncing Israeli claims to sovereignty over any territory beyond the security barrier, freezing all construction in, and funding of, Jewish communities in that territory, but, allegedly to avoid the errors of the 2005 disengagement from Gaza, keep the IDF deployed there.

Eerie echoes

In a recent interview on the widely viewed Hebrew site, Ynet, Gantz made remarks that eerily echoed the “rationale” of the INSS-CIS “plan” and which were widely interpreted as being favorable to the 2005 Gaza disengagement—and as endorsing the implementation of additional unilateral measures, involving withdrawal and evacuation of Jewish communities.

According to Gantz: “The disengagement was carried out with Israel’s political considerations in mind”. He added that “we must find the way in which we don’t have control over others…we need to take the lessons [of the Gaza disengagement] and implement them elsewhere.”

Although it is difficult to misconstrue these words, Gantz did try to walk them back later –but to little avail.

Indeed, a later clarification, after the interview, from his party that “under a Gantz government there not will be any unilateral measures regarding evacuation of settlements” is hardly reassuring. After all, while the INSS-CIS plan does not call for the unilateral evacuation of settlements, it does recommend stifling and strangling them, until they wither away and are abandoned.

But if Gantz’s benign perspective of past debacles is troubling enough, his apparent endorsement of a future fiascos is even more so—and casts a heavy shadow over his judgment.

Foreseeable foregone fiasco

After all, the “plan” advanced by INSS-CIS is an almost certain formula for disaster.

For, it will unavoidably:

– Replicate the conditions that prevailed in South Lebanon prior to 2000—on the fringes of Greater Tel Aviv

– Entrap the IDF in open-ended occupation, whose duration is dependent exclusively on Palestinian-Arabs

– Culminate in unilateral withdrawal without any agreement

None of this is difficult for foresee.

Clearly, by advocating renunciation of claims to sovereignty over all of Judea-Samaria beyond the security barrier, on the one hand; with the continued deployment of the IDF in that territory, on the other, the INSS-CIS “plan” is in effect, calling for replicating precisely the conditions that prevailed in South Lebanon until the hasty unilateral IDF retreat in 2000.

The “plan” envisions this IDF deployment continuing until some acceptable arrangement with the Palestinian-Arabs can be reached. But what if no such agreement materializes?

Obviously then, this formula for deploying the IDF for an indeterminate period, in territory over which Israel lays no sovereign claim—and hence, by implication, acknowledges that others have such claims—creates an unsustainable political configuration.

Indeed, all the Palestinian-Arabs need to do to ensnare the IDF in an open-ended “occupation” is… well, nothing.

All they need to do is wait for the IDF to become caught up in what will inevitably become an ongoing guerrilla campaign — an easy target for attacks by a hostile population, backed by armed Palestinian security services (which neither INSS nor CIS recommends dismantling).

Unilateral withdrawal in slow motion

Soon, a combination of mounting domestic and international pressure will build up for the IDF to withdraw—similar to that which precipitated the IDF pullout from South Lebanon.

On the domestic front, recurring IDF casualties in a “foreign land” will result in incessant calls to “bring our boys back home”.

On the international front, increasing impatience with open-ended “occupation” will create growing demands for the removal of Israeli troops.

Eventually, continued IDF deployment will no longer be tenable and evacuation will become inevitable—without any adequate political settlement or sustainable security arrangements.

Just like in South Lebanon.

This then, is the inevitable chain of events that will result from adopting the INSS-CIS plan.

Given the troubling evidence, there seems a definite chance that, if elected Prime Minister, Gantz may well embark on the course charted by INSS-CIS.

Accordingly, whether raised explicitly during the campaign or not, support or opposition for it will be the latent agenda in the April election—and voters ought to be aware of what they are really voting for—or against.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is from Israeli Prime Minisiter Benjamin Netanyahu’s Facebook page.

Number of Illegal Aliens Behind Bars in U.S. Higher than Media Wants us to Believe

How many times have you heard it from the mainstream media—Americans are criminals at a higher rate than immigrants, so those new American wannabes flooding our border pose no threat!

Well, that is fake news!

In case you missed the new report at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, John Binder writing at Breitbart has the numbers.

Study: Illegal Aliens Up to 5X More Likely To Be in Prison Than Americans

Illegal aliens concentrated in ten U.S. states are up to more than five times as likely to be in prison for crimes than American citizens and legal immigrants, a new study reveals.

Research by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)analyzed states with the highest concentration of illegal aliens — including Arizona, California, Florida, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Texas, and Washington — debunking claims by the big business interests and open borders lobby that the illegal alien population is generally harmless to Americans.

Screenshot (866)

For example, the FAIR study found that in New Jersey, which has a generally small prison population, illegal aliens are about 5.5 times more likely to be incarcerated than American citizens and legal immigrants.

[….]

As Breitbart News has extensively reported, criminal foreigners in federal prison cost American taxpayers about $1.4 billion every year.Likewise, mass immigration to the U.S. from primarily Central America has led to a booming foreign incarcerated population from the region.

Between Fiscal Year 2011 and 2016, about 91 percent of all criminal illegal and legal immigrants in federal U.S. prisons were nationals from Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Colombia, and Guatemala, Breitbart News reported.

More here.

What can you do?  You should bookmark the FAIR report or Binder’s piece and the next time you see news from, for instance, some Leftwing politician, that Americans commit crimes at a higher rate than “new Americans,” take time to let the media outlet or the elected official know that they are wrong.

Better still don’t wait and write a letter to the editor for your local paper with the statistics!

RELATED ARTICLE: Democrats Winning Nearly 90% of Districts with Large Foreign Populations

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is by Pixabay.

Military On The Border: Appropriate Response To A Crisis

How does a house stand without walls?

On February 3, 2019 ABC News posted an AP (Associated Press) report, “Pentagon sending another 3,750 troops to Southwest border.”

The ABC/AP report noted that the Trump administration was sending those members of the armed forces to the U.S./Mexican border to bring the total number of active-duty troops to 4,350. The Pentagon said that the soldiers would be installing 150 miles of concertina barbed wire and assist with surveilling the border, but not have direct contact with any illegal aliens or aid in their arrest by the Border Patrol. Reportedly, however, the soldiers will be able to help defend Border Patrol agents who come under fire.

The news report included this excerpt:

The announcement is in line with what Acting Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan had said on Tuesday when he provided estimates for the next phase of a military mission that has grown in size and length. Critics have derided it as a political ploy by the White House as President Donald Trump seeks billions to build a border wall.

It is astonishing that anyone would actually believe that protecting America and Americans from the entry of uninspected aliens and cargo is a “political ploy.”

Is the oath of office the President, Vice President or members of Congress take a political ploy?

In point of fact, the political foes of the border wall are playing politics with national security, public safety, public health and the livelihoods of American and lawful immigrant workers.

Even though prior administrations, including those of George W. Bush and Barak Obama, have sent military units to back up the Border Patrol, the fact that President Trump would take this action incites the knee-jerk deprecatory reactions of his foes.

Let us make a point that needs to be made when considering cooperation between the valiant men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol and those of the U.S. Armed Forces.

While it makes headlines that the U.S. military is being called upon to back up the Border Patrol, in reality the Border Patrol, the Inspectors of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and ICE agents (INS agents prior to the creation of DHS) have always backed up the United States military.

This is a point that is never made in the media but should be: the primary and shared mission of the five branches of the armed forces is to keep the enemies of the United States as far from our shores as possible.

Up close, however, that critical mission falls to the U.S. Border Patrol and to the inspectors at ports of entry who have the responsibility for determining whether or not to admit aliens into the United States.

Finally, ICE agents back up both the Border Patrol and the CBP Inspectors and are charged with, among other missions, locating and apprehending aliens who violate our immigration laws.

This critical nature of immigration law enforcement provided the incentive to move the enforcement and administration of our immigration laws from the Labor Department to the Justice Department at the beginning of World War II when it was realized that spies, saboteurs and enemy combatants were seeking to enter the United States to act against America.

Nevertheless, the ABC News article went on to report:

Members of Congress have question whether the border mission is distracting troops from their main work of fighting extremists abroad and training for combat. The first active-duty troops were sent to the border on about Oct. 30 for a mission that was to end Dec. 15. It has since been extended twice.

“What impact does it have to readiness to send several thousand troops down to the Southern border? It interrupts their training. It interrupts their dwell time,” Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee said at a hearing on Tuesday.

On Tuesday, January 29, 2019, the same day that the House Armed Services Committee conducted its hearing, the Senate Intelligence Committee also conducted a hearing on Worldwide Threats. The Senate hearing was predicated on the release of a “World-Wide Threat Assessment” detailing the major threats that confront America and Americans that was issued by Daniel Coats, the Director of the Office of National Intelligence, which oversees the U.S. intelligence community.

That hearing and report served as the predications for a couple of my recent commentaries, including “World-Wide Threat Assessment Makes Powerful Case For Border Security.”

Perhaps the esteemed members of our Congress should be given a required reading list and an exam after they complete their assignment. (NOTE: their staffers cannot do the reading or take the exams for them!)

The 9/11 Commission Report and the official report, 9/11 and  Terrorist Travel – Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, should be at the top of the list.

This latter report focused specifically on the ability of the terrorists to travel around the world, enter the United States, and ultimately embed themselves here as they went about their deadly preparations and carried out an attack. The preface of this report begins with the following paragraph:

It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.

The short version of that paragraph for our intellectually challenged “representatives” is simply the commonsense phrase, “Border security is national security.”

In the days, weeks and months after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, our leaders told us we needed to fight the terrorists overseas so that we would not need to fight them here.

The harsh and unavoidable reality is that we are fighting them “over here” each and every day.

This is why we undergo incredibly intrusive searches before we board airliners and have to submit to searches to enter government office buildings.

This is why the Patriot Act was enacted which all but shredded the Fourth Amendment, in the name of the “War on Terror.”

Nevertheless, this mantra about fighting the terrorists “over there” so that we won’t have to fight them “over here” was frequently repeated by globalist politicians from both political parties, even as it ignored the obvious: the terror attacks of 9/11 did not happen “over there,” they occurred “over here” in lower Manhattan, in Washington, D.C., and in a previously quiet field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

More terror attacks have since been carried out within the borders of the United States by aliens who, in one way or another, managed to enter the country. Some of those attacks killed and injured innocent victims while others thankfully failed.

Beyond the threats posed by foreign terrorists, the United States is also under siege from transnational criminal organizations and drug cartels that, in recent years in particular, have partnered with terrorist organizations such as Iran’s Hezbollah.

Here are a few of my recent commentaries that Mr. Smith and his colleagues should read to understand that which he clearly does not understand, given the questions he raised in the ABC News report:

Iran Threatens U.S. And Its Allies With “Drugs, Refugees, Bombs And Assassination”
Congress, meanwhile, remains willfully blind.

Jihadis And Drug Cartel At Our Border
A nightmare on the horizon.

Secure Borders Protect Immigrant Communities
Immigrants are the most vulnerable to transnational gangs.

Opposition To A Border Wall Is Opposition To Public Safety
Open borders cost innocent lives.

Simply stated, dead is dead. Whether the death of innocent victims is the result of a terror attack perpetrated by aliens who violated our immigration laws or a crime of violence committed by an illegal alien, the victims are no less dead. Neither are those who fall victim to narcotics smuggled into the United States and die of a drug overdose.

Illegal immigration is not a “victimless crime” but creates an obvious crisis for America and Americans.

Decent, moral leaders would never put political goals ahead of innocent lives. To politicize national security and public safety takes a very special sort of miscreant. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of such individuals who, it would seem, see dead bodies as speed bumps on their road to political objectives.

It is beyond belief that they could obstruct commonsense measures to protect national security and public safety in this particularly perilous era, and then sleep at night.

EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column with images is republished with permission.

Chinese Aggression Against the U.S.A.

Far more than trade is involved.

My previous article for FrontPage Magazine focused on specific threats to the United States that were linked to border security issues raised in the January 29, 2019 Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Worldwide Threats that was itself predicated on the Intelligence Community’s just-released World-Wide Threat Assessment.

I used the information disclosed at the hearing and contained in that threat assessment report about the dangers to America created by transnational criminal organizations and translational gangs such as MS-13 and the drug cartels in Mexico, as well as the crimes and activities of human traffickers that support the Trump administration’s demands for a border wall, a wall that unbelievably, the leaders of the Democratic Party adamantly oppose.

However, the report included much more material about other global threats that confront the United States and its interests. Simply stated, the world is a dangerous place.

Among the other threats addressed in the report were those posed by China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.

Today we will take a hard look at China and how its aggressive and relentless pursuit of global dominance threatens America.

Before we go any further, we must remember that China is led by a totalitarian Communist regime that is not an ally but rather a serious adversary of the United States.

President Trump is the first American President in decades to take a strong position against Chinese transgressions against the United States where trade, currency manipulation and espionage are concerned.

China has moved swiftly to consolidate its stranglehold on its own citizens by politically eliminating presidential term limits and exploiting ever more sophisticated technological tools such as social media, facial recognition technology, and other such hi-tech means.

On January 13, 2019 CBS News’ 60 Minutes aired a report on the developments in artificial intelligence (AI) brought about by venture capitalist Kai-Fu Lee’s investments and China’s effort to dominate the AI field.

There is no shortage of specific examples of Chinese espionage committed against the United States and U.S. companies. Such espionage has become so routine and commonplace that the U.S intelligence services have come to refer to this as “Chinese Take-Out”!

Frequently Chinese citizens who acquire lawful immigrant status and United States citizenship use that status to facilitate espionage against America and American companies.

To cite a recent example, on December 21, 2018 the Justice Department issued a press release, Chinese National Charged with Committing Theft of Trade Secrets that began with the following statement:

Hongjin Tan, a 35 year old Chinese national and U.S. legal permanent resident, was arrested on Dec. 20 and charged with theft of trade secrets. Tan is alleged to have stolen the trade secrets from his employer, a U.S. petroleum company.

The announcement was made by Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers, U.S. Attorney Trent Shores for the Northern District of Oklahoma, and Special Agent in Charge Kathryn Peterson of the FBI Oklahoma City Field Office.

“Hongjin Tan allegedly stole trade secrets related to a product worth more than $1 billion from his U.S.-based petroleum company employer, to use for the benefit of a Chinese company where he was offered employment,” said Assistant Attorney General Demers. “The theft of intellectual property harms American companies and American workers. As our recent cases show, all too often these thefts involve the Chinese government or Chinese companies. The Department recently launched an initiative to protect our economy from such illegal practices emanating from China, and we continue to make this a top priority.” 

On January 28, 2019 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a press releaseChinese telecommunications conglomerate Huawei and Huawei CFO Wanzhou Meng charged with financial fraud.

On that same day, January 28th, the Justice Department issued a press release about the same investigation, Chinese Telecommunications Device Manufacturer and its U.S. Affiliate Indicted for Theft of Trade Secrets, Wire Fraud, and Obstruction Of Justice /Huawei Corporate Entities Conspired to Steal Trade Secret Technology and Offered Bonus to Workers who Stole Confidential Information from Companies Around the World.

The DOJ press release also included a link to the ten count indictment.

Besides imposing tariffs against Chinese imports, President Trump has also imposed restrictions on Chinese students who are studying in the United States. This was the focus of my article, “Trump Administration Restricts Chinese Students – Finally, America confronts a massive espionage operation.”

This is a welcome change by the administration to protect America and Americans. I have written several articles about Chinese espionage and belligerence and how, for decades, our universities have been training foreign students who seek to exploit our educational system to further the goals and agendas of America’s adversaries, including hundreds of thousands of Chinese STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) students who, as they acquire first-rate education in the United States, have been able to work for American companies under the auspices of Optional Practical Training that enables foreign students to apply their training and education in real world jobs for American companies in the United States. This program has facilitated Chinese espionage against American companies including ones that have military contracts.

These long-overdue efforts of the Trump administration should be cheered and supported by all Americans and even American allies around the world who should take similar actions.

Three of my relatively recent articles highlight China’s massive espionage campaign against the United States:

Chinese Citizen Arrested By FBI For Spying On U.S. – A case that highlights the nexus between immigration and espionage.

China Ratchets Up Its U.S. Spying Programs:  American Universities and financial institutions are at risk.

Educating America’s Adversaries:  China’s engineers are building China’s military. Who taught them?

When American companies, in a quest for cheap labor and reduced regulation, have set up factories in China, China has seized the opportunity to engage in industrial espionage against those companies proving that sometimes short-term savings cost more, often much more, in the end.

In some instances, American companies have voluntarily cooperated with China’s totalitarian regime. For example, Google has been enlisted by the Chinese government to help crack down on civil liberties in China against its own citizens even as Google actively and aggressively opposes any efforts by the U.S. government to protect America and Americans from the threat of international terrorists.

My recent article “Google vs Border Security” referenced an article published by The Intercept, titled, “Google Plans To Launch Censored Search Engine In China, Leaked Documents Reveal.”

Eager to do lucrative business in China, Google was willing to “go along to get along” while its dealing with the U.S. government went in precisely the opposite direction.

A September 21, 2018, Newsweek article, “Google Brainstormed Ways To Combat Trump’s Travel Ban By Leveraging Search Results For Pro-Immigration Causes,” included the following excerpt: “Google, along with Apple, Facebook and other technology companies, filed a joint amicus brief challenging the travel ban, stating that it “inflicts significant harm on American business, innovation and growth.

Now let’s turn to the Threat Assessment. Consider this excerpt that is found on pages 24 and 25:

China

The Chinese Communist Party’s Concentration of Power

China is deepening its authoritarian turn under President Xi Jinping, and the resulting hardening of Chinese politics and governance probably will make it more difficult for the leadership to recognize and correct policy errors, including in relations with the United States and our allies and partners.

President Xi removed one of the few remaining checks on his authority when he eliminated presidential term limits in March 2018, and the Chinese Communist Party has reasserted control over the economy and society, tightened legal and media controls, marginalized independent voices, and intensified repression of Chinese Muslims, Christians, and other religious minorities.

The Chinese Government also is harnessing technology, including facial recognition, biometrics, and vehicle GPS tracking, to bolster its apparatus of domestic monitoring and control.

Beijing’s increasing restrictions on scholars’ and researchers’ freedom of movement and communication with US counterparts may increase the prospects for misunderstanding and misinterpretation of US policies.

Universities in the United States have been willing to accept Chinese demands for changes in curricula in exchange for funding from China. On January 17, 2018 Politico published a report, How China Infiltrated U.S. Classrooms that begins with this passage:

Last year, the University of North Carolina at Charlotte made an announcement to great fanfare: The university would soon open a branch of the Confucius Institute, the Chinese government-funded educational institutions that teach Chinese language, culture and history. The Confucius Institute would “help students be better equipped to succeed in an increasingly globalized world,” says Nancy Gutierrez, UNC Charlotte’s dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, and “broaden the University’s outreach and support for language instruction and cultural opportunities in the Charlotte community,” according to a press release.

But the Confucius Institutes’ goals are a little less wholesome and edifying than they sound—and this is by the Chinese government’s own account. A 2011 speech by a standing member of the Politburo in Beijing laid out the case: “The Confucius Institute is an appealing brand for expanding our culture abroad,” Li Changchun said. “It has made an important contribution toward improving our soft power. The ‘Confucius’ brand has a natural attractiveness. Using the excuse of teaching Chinese language, everything looks reasonable and logical.”

Li, it now seems, was right to exult. More than a decade after they were created, Confucius Institutes have sprouted up at more than 500 college campuses worldwide, with more than 100 of them in the United States—including at The George Washington University, the University of Michigan and the University of Iowa. Overseen by a branch of the Chinese Ministry of Education known colloquially as Hanban, the institutes are part of a broader propaganda initiative that the Chinese government is pumping an estimated $10 billion into annually, and they have only been bolstered by growing interest in China among American college students.

Yet along with their growth have come consistent questions about whether the institutes belong on campuses that profess to promote free inquiry. Confucius Institutes teach a very particular, Beijing-approved version of Chinese culture and history: one that ignores concerns over human rights, for example, and teaches that Taiwan and Tibet indisputably belong to Mainland China. Take it from the aforementioned Li, who also said in 2009 that Confucius Institutes are an “important part of China’s overseas propaganda set-up.” Critics also charge that the centers have led to a climate of self-censorship on campuses that play host to them.

Remarkably, even as Antifa thugs and university administrations seek to block American conservatives from providing their perspectives on college campuses across the United States, Communist China’s outrageous propaganda is embraced and welcomed on American college campuses.

Lenin has been quoted as saying, “The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” Today there is a fire sale on rope in America and it must end. The sooner the better!

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared on FrontPage Magazine. It is republished with permission.

VIDEO: Exclusive Interview with Dr. Dan Tirza — Israelis ‘Wall Builder’

We are happy to announce that Dr. Dan Tirza, a living-legend in Israel, will be with us on our May 25 – June 4, 2019, fact-finding expedition to Israel to learn how he helped Israel solve their border security problems of illegal immigration and terrorist attacks.

We interviewed Dr. Tirza about how the Israelis faced the same problems America faces with illegal immigration on our Mexican border and how Tirza and his team came up with creative solutions to “impossible” problems to secure the sovereignty for the State of Israel. You do not want to miss this opportunity to learn first-hand how to really solve the border crisis and come back to America and help our country move in the same direction.

NOTE: We have limited space available for this mission to Israel so check out our website and sign up now!

EDITORS NOTE: This United West column with video is republished with permission.